Hi Jeff - read the thread below starting with my Sept 8 2008 email. Bruce - what is the status on the insula label for aparc?
carl > Hello all, > > Thank you for your quick replies to my previous posts. One more question. I am wondering what the difference is and if I should be taking average thickness measurements for cortical regions from lh.aparc.a2005s.stats or lh.aparc.stats. I think the main difference is that lh.aparc.a2005s.stats was made with ?h.atlas2005_simple.gcs and lh.aparc.stats was made with ?h.curvature.buckner40.filled.desikan_killiany.2007-06-20gcs. Which one is more accurate? I am using freesurfer 3.0.5. > > Thank you, > Jeff Sadino Bruce Fischl fischl at nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Tue Sep 9 10:03:31 EDT 2008 Previous message: [Freesurfer] annotation file and labels for fsaverage Next message: [Freesurfer] dicom image viewer Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] great, thanks Ron. Bruce On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Ron Killiany wrote: > I believe Sarah will be over at MGH on friday to begin finalizing this. > > --ron > > On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:31 PM, Bruce Fischl <fischl at nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>wrote: > >> Hi Dara, >> >> there is an insula label in the works (*lots* of people have asked this >> question). Ron: any updates on the insula label? >> >> thanks >> Bruce >> >> On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Dara Manoach wrote: >> >> Thanks very much for the detailed info Karl (and Doug and Bruce)! >>> >>> My primary ROI is ACC, so we'll probably use Aparc with the cingulate >>> divisions. I'll have to review the paper to see if the anatomic bases of >>> the divisions are described. I'm surprised, though, that there is not an >>> insula label, and I'm wondering why it would not be possible to use ROI >>> labels from the two annotation schemes to examine activation in group data >>> (i.e., ACC labels from aparc and insula from aparc2005). >>> >>> best, >>> dara >>> >>> On Sep 8, 2008, at 8:18 PM, Bruce Fischl wrote: >>> >>> for what it's worth we label the cc now explicitly in the aseg, which is >>>> certainly more accurate than the aparc used to be. >>>> >>>> Thanks for the detailed answer though Carl! >>>> >>>> Bruce >>>> On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 carl at nmr.mgh.harvard.edu wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi Dara, >>>>> >>>>> You can certainly use either one as Doug says, but depending on your >>>>> purposes, one or the other may have some virtues. 2005 consists of >>>>> discrete sulcal and gyral labels with traditional anatomical names so >>>>> there are a lot more labels (which is why Doug describes it as very >>>>> detailed), whereas aparc in general collapses these into summary >>>>> regions. >>>>> >>>>> But it is not a a simple case of lumper vs splitter....For instance it >>>>> seems that >>>>> >>>>> Aparc divides the cingulate into rostral anterior, caudal anterior, >>>>> posterior cingulate whereas in aparc 2005 it is lumped into one >>>>> cingulate >>>>> label >>>>> >>>>> Aparc shows the corpus c. nicely (I think there may even be a >>>>> subparcellation available in development) whereas the cc is lost in the >>>>> medial wall in 2005. >>>>> >>>>> Aparc differentiates the pars orbitalis nicely on the orbital surface >>>>> from >>>>> the rest of the ofc, aparc 2005 does not ? possibly of interest to >>>>> someone >>>>> who is looking at ventrolateral pfc and its neighbors >>>>> >>>>> Aparc includes in its lateral ofc label everything lateral to the rectus >>>>> gyrus, including the central ofc and the (unlabeled) transverse sulcus >>>>> neither of which would be understood as being in the lateral ofc as that >>>>> term is typically used today. >>>>> >>>>> Aparc 2005 shows a view that nicely differentiates the rectus gyrus on >>>>> sagital section from the adjoining, whereas aparc lumps a broad >>>>> territory >>>>> into ?medial OFC? >>>>> >>>>> Aparc 2005 includes parcellation of the Insula, aparc does not and it is >>>>> lost in the unknown medial wall (there has been talk of fixing this but >>>>> is >>>>> this real, Bruce or Doug?) >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps what we need is a ?best of aparc and aparc 2005?. >>>>> >>>>> For surfing purposes you can also ?fool? tksurfer into showing you the >>>>> names of the (typically more more detailed) 2005 parcellations while >>>>> viewing the brain labeled with the aparc labels which at times have more >>>>> detail ? though I have never asked Doug if this will always work >>>>> correctly. >>>>> >>>>> If others have discovered pros and cons in other regions, please share. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Carl >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
